AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method - Page 135 of MSA manual 3rd edition

[cbeatty]

The Analytical Method for attribute msa on page 135 of MSA manual 3rd edition is the preferred method per AIAG. Other than the MSA manual, I have found very little information on this method. Are there many other people out there using this? Does anyone have a spreadsheet for the analytical method that they would be willing to share?
For years we have been using the 2 person x 20 part x2 times short version. This may have had some shortcomings but is was quick and straightforward. It was not unreasonable to expect personnel at various plants to be able to implement it. With the analytical method, I fear the complexity will overwhelm many sites that we have.

 

[Atul Khandekar]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

For years we have been using the 2 person x 20 part x2 times short version. This may have had some shortcomings but is was quick and straightforward. It was not unreasonable to expect personnel at various plants to be able to implement it. With the analytical method, I fear the complexity will overwhelm many sites that we have.

IMO you may continue using this if it is still acceptable to your customers.

 

[fireonce]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

IMO you may continue using this if it is still acceptable to your customers.

I couldn't agree with you more!

 

[antoine.dias]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

The Analytical Method for attribute msa on page 135 of MSA manual 3rd edition is the preferred method per AIAG. Other than the MSA manual, I have found very little information on this method. Are there many other people out there using this? Does anyone have a spreadsheet for the analytical method that they would be willing to share?
For years we have been using the 2 person x 20 part x2 times short version. This may have had some shortcomings but is was quick and straightforward. It was not unreasonable to expect personnel at various plants to be able to implement it. With the analytical method, I fear the complexity will overwhelm many sites that we have.

As long as your customer approves the way you work you are safe.

But, if you deliver to e.g. Ford you have the following guidelines from their customer specific requirements :

Quote:
Variable gauge studies should utilize 10 parts, 3 operators and 3 trials. Attribute gauge studies should utilize 50 parts, 3 operators, 3 trials. Effective attribute gauge study samples include parts within specification and parts outside specification for each criterion being measured and within the expected range of manufacturing variability.
Unquote

Best regards,

Antoine

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

But, if you deliver to e.g. Ford you have the following guidelines from their customer specific requirements :

Quote:
Variable gauge studies should utilize 10 parts, 3 operators and 3 trials. Attribute gauge studies should utilize 50 parts, 3 operators, 3 trials. Effective attribute gauge study samples include parts within specification and parts outside specification for each criterion being measured and within the expected range of manufacturing variability.
Unquote

Does that mean Ford considers a "should" as a "shall"?

 

[cbeatty]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

Unfortunately, my customer (GM) has not been too responsive to my request for approval of the short form. It seems that the people who make the decisions in supplier quality do not know enough about MSA to make an informed decision so I have been passed onto to some else and have not gotten any further. If anyone has Ford, Chrysler or GM as a customer, what attribute study have you been using? Thanks.

 

[amirodemachio]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

Quote:
Attribute gauge studies should utilize 50 parts, 3 operators, 3 trials. Effective

hi all,

This is the first time i'm joing in this forum... is there any method that using less than 50 parts..? i saw a presentation slide by Rolls-Royce.. they using a method that i'm not familiar with but acceptable to TS16949 standard.. the minimum recommendation is 20 parts.. i'm not sure whether this is the same method as cbeatty is using.. can someone comment on this..

TQ

 

[Miner]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

Any takers on answering this question?

 

[Atul Khandekar]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

Quote:
Attribute gauge studies should utilize 50 parts, 3 operators, 3 trials. Effective

hi all,

This is the first time i'm joing in this forum... is there any method that using less than 50 parts..? i saw a presentation slide by Rolls-Royce.. they using a method that i'm not familiar with but acceptable to TS16949 standard.. the minimum recommendation is 20 parts.. i'm not sure whether this is the same method as cbeatty is using.. can someone comment on this..

TQ

Welcome to posting at the Cove, amirodemachio !

The Rolls Royce training document you are referring, says select up to 30 parts with minimum 20 recommended. They are calculating the effectiveness scores and not the kappa scores. Please read the attribute kappa crosstab method described in the MSA manual - in addition to kappa statistic, it does show effectiveness calculations as well as false alarm and miss rates.

Also See previous discussions on this topic:

Attribute Gage R&R - Number of Samples - OFI during our TS-16949 surveillance audit

and

TS 16949 - AIAG's MSA Manual - Thread Inspection Gage - Attribute Gage R&R

Hope this helps...If not, just ask and we would try to answer any specific query.

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

Re: AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method

Unfortunately, my customer (GM) has not been too responsive to my request for approval of the short form. It seems that the people who make the decisions in supplier quality do not know enough about MSA to make an informed decision so I have been passed onto to some else and have not gotten any further. If anyone has Ford, Chrysler or GM as a customer, what attribute study have you been using? Thanks.

Cheatty - Welcome to the Cove

We are Tier 1, 2, and 3 to GM and we still use the 20 parts, 2 operators, 2 trials method with the acceptance being that all 4 measurements for each part agree. Haven't had a problem so far : .